or we will never get to the hard parts, so that was probably my biggest concern especially when i hear the conversation may be being reduced or eliminated completely so the diversity of something to this country to a and we should never forget and if we go back to the declaration of independence one of the fact that was used to talk about the king is the fact that he was preventing people from coming to the country and being able to migrate here kyl and then if we

look at the statue of liberty to give me your tired in your poor what i don't want people to take away from this hearing is all of a sudden we forgot about the tide of the poor and the people that are striving for a better life, so those are probably my biggest concerns when we what that he the president we sat and we have economic problems and we are getting out of them like we always do we and we will always prospered because we are resilient. but the question becomes what about the moral ground that we would see if we just said we are going to get about 11 million people and we are only going to focus on skilled workers we are not going to take care of this house and equal protection do you worry about that? >> i do. the fifth thing is our country is in a mess. we have a brain drain but not for the first time in history.

it's never happened before. america has been a land. it is happening right now. if we wait to fix the skill problem, we will lose several hundred thousand more people who could be healing of the economy. unless and until the economy heels we will not be receptive to the unskilled workers. so, it is a mess right now. but i am talking about is let's agree on what we agree on and get it over with. let's agree on the skill and the dream act and get some kind of a green card to the undocumented workers while we decide on these shifts. that is toxic right now but i'm not optimistic we could solve the problem. maybe i will be wrong but in the meantime let's agree on what we agree on and make things better for everyone. i'm saying let's give these undocumented workers green cards so my father has a green card for example. he has lived here for 30 years i believe without that problem. let's solve the problem where it can be solved.

>> my life lived here for 25 years on a green card until she decided to naturalize. the only difference where she couldn't vote in the school board elections which annoyed her. the statute of liberty is on the cover of all of the commission on immigration reform reports and on the diversity visa i think if you look at the competition to the composition of the current, legal emigration to the u.s., it is very diverse. when that provision was passed there was concern was and diverse enough. since then it has become very diverse and these are adding 55,000 visas that are getting 8 million applications each year randomly allocated by computerized lottery. that is a somewhat odd way to set priorities. the commission said we should set priorities and we should deliver on them and the

diversity visa program fell then and i think we would say now that it doesn't rise to that level of priority compared to the other priorities. >> the time of the gentleman has expired and recognize the gentleman from idaho for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i am excited that we are having this hearing. i think it's important to we modernize the immigration system. we agree we have a broken immigration system but we need to find a solution to the problems that we have by being fair. we need to be fair to the millions of americans that want to follow the rules law. we need to be fair to the millions of people that are waiting in line to come to the united states and i think we have to be fair to the 11 million people that are here in thus united states illegally. i have a few questions about this, but first, you spoke about the civilian category in your report.

can you explain -- i agree on the conclusion of the report we should get rid of the category. can you explain a little bit on what you think that is important? >> there are not enough allocated for the huge volume of applications. you have a 2.5 million waiting list and one of the members already mentioned with the wait time is which varies from 12 to 20 years depending on the country. succumb if you are not going to manage the backlog, which is what the commission said we should not be doing, that is a category that is being managed by unconscionable backlogs and we could actually use those visas to allocate them to the spouse's and the higher priority. >> yes indeed. something that i disagree with is the guest worker issue and i am a little bit dumbfounded. i know this report came out a few years ago. >> 15 years.

>> we have at least two idaho dairy farmers that have experienced the audits in the last couple of years. 32 out of the 40 employees didn't qualify to work in the united states and the other one, 47 out of the 57 did not qualify. they went ahead and fired all of those employees and they went ahead and asked for people to come work at the barre. they could not find a single person that applied for that position who spoke english. now, they don't know if the people are legal or illegal because the people they hired have legal documents and they hadn't done another odd it. how can you save the we do not have the need. that is a large number of employees that needs to be hired and not a single person that spoke english applied for the position. >> i don't know the circumstances. i'm sorry, but i what say it is true that in some agricultural

areas, employers in particular in the rural areas that were agriculture and it normally is any way have become dependent on the assumption they can recruit from this undocumented work force, and -- >> this is different. this is someone that has to fire everybody that is working at their dairy and they couldn't find anybody that could be, you know, that could speak english. i don't know what their status was. i was an immigration lawyer for 15 years and i found the experience of some of the agricultural areas in the dairy industry, the agricultural industries. it's hard to find american workers who want to do the job, and then your solution is just they should do something else. they should pick all men since the something else. but the reality is the we should let the market decide that, shouldn't be? you know, it seems to me that even in the example you gave, the owner of the farm had already decided that she wasn't

going to fix the apricots any more because the market wasn't working. and i think we need to do something about the guest worker. so i disagree with you there. >> it's a commission. >> mayor castro, i believe that -- i liked the words that we progress because we are problematic but it seems that your solution is not pragmatic. you say it has to be a pathway to citizenship or nothing else. also, my 15 years of experience as an aberration lawyer i talked to thousands and thousands of people that are here illegally and what they want is to come out of the shadow. they want to be about to be legal and be able to work and they want to travel and they want to feel like they are being treated with dignity. not very many people told me i want to be a citizen. i have to be a citizen in order to feel like i am a dignified person. so if we can find a solution that is short to the pat we've

citizenship but better than taking 12 million people out why is that not a good solution? >> i would say that is not the solution that is the nation's best interest. i think that is what i said and i would be the most pragmatic solution. one of the reasons that i believe that is that if we do not go down that route, that i am convinced we are more likely to find ourselves here again in ten years, 15 years, 20 years, so if you ask me would that be better than zero, i wouldn't necessarily disagree. but it is that sufficient? does it address the issues we have in front of us? no. it's not a sufficient solution. >> the question that i have for you and all advocates of immigration reform is whether you want a political solution or a policy solution to it if we want a political solution, you guys are going to insist on halfway to citizenship and we are going to beat republicans over the head on this issue but if we want a policy solution i

think there is goodwill in the house of representatives for the us to come together and actually have a pragmatic solution to the current problem that we have an assault and modernize the immigration system for years to come. thank you very much. >> i think the gentleman. from illinois, mr. gutierez is recognized. saxby 33 much, mr. chairman. first i would like to say while we have been here every minute someone has been deported. most of those are committed no crime other than working in the united states which is a misdemeanor the last time i checked. they are raising their families and contributing to it is always the question of raising taxes. they pay taxes but you can check with the social security department. there is a large fund that goes i counted four. they don't know who to attribute the money to because people have contributed to i think we need to do comprehensive immigration

reform so when they pay taxes it goes into the right account and it helps to fund and fuel our economy. i want the mayor and the state and the federal government to garner those tax dollars and not to be in the pockets of some unscrupulous employer that isn't taxing them but not sending them money. plus given the 1986 legislation, we all know that there was an increase in the urning devotee of the undocumented. everybody keeps talking about innovation. let me give you a little innovation. whiteaker that the uncertainty of the market and what we do at the congress. the uncertainty about what we do and what that causes for the financial market . i just want everybody to think for one moment. what do you think about the uncertainty in the life of 11 million undocumented workers when you give them certainty? i will tell you what i believe they are going to do. they're going to go by that house that the always been thinking about buying and since

they were undocumented and they are going to buy that car. we know 75% of our economic activity in the united states is that somebody is going to purchase something. i want you to think. i want you to think about going to introduce agencies and to the banks to open accounts and to invest and to save, and most importantly, as i and others, yes i am 59-years-old and i am part of that group of people that is going to be hopefully soon going into the sunset. >> how soon? [laughter] >> we have the largest percentage of people ever before in the history of the nation that early in the work force in the next 15 years. we need to replace them and these assets. let me take a moment to say the following. there are undocumented people in this room, there are dreamers in this world. i am happy that the president

uses executive authority. 500,000 of them are now safe from deportation. 150,000. one of them is in my office and i have to tell you something. he isn't a burden. he got legalized. she can to my office, he's working, he's paying taxes. he's got health care. how did he get health care? the way most of us get health care. i don't think that we should look at immigrants and say how are they going to get health care? the same way the members of congress get health care. we get health care at our place of employment. that's the same place they are probably going to get health care. so, i want to say to everybody i want to quickly say to those that have come here and i am sorry i am going to butcher your name, good enough, but i want to say we have a bill introduced by doug gentlelady from california.

i insisted that nothing happened on any other particular part of the comprehensive immigration reform unless we did it all. but in good faith to show that we want to work with every release at 50,000. i will not object but they needed to the queen. we didn't want you to get something while someone else lost something. we wanted to give it to you. and in our bill, 50,000 because it comes from the very first day. you get to come from the very first day with your children because we believe that we should welcome you and your talent and at the same time not to have to make a distinction between serving the country and bringing your talent and being sacrificed cherishing the fact that your family might not be there with you. we can resolve this and many other issues. last i want to say a special thank you to the mayor castro.

you just let of our house. my wife and my daughters and my grandson. you let us up with your speech at the democratic convention, with your leadership as the mayor, with your point is, the way it is you make us so proud and i would like to say to you i am so thankful that america gave your grandparents a chance and that you are here with us today because i know not only centennial but the nation is better because of your service. thank you so much for your testimony today. and thank you, mr. chairman to an estimate by think the gentleman from california is recognized.

>> [chanting] the committee will have ordered. this is not the way. all of those must leave. [chanting] >> so any of you are not in doubt about the rules of the committee i want to make sure that everybody knows the house rules provide the chairman of the committee may punish breaches of order and decorum by center and exclusion from the hearing. just a moment ago we didn't have order in the hearing room and members of the audience must behave in an orderly fashion or else. let me just say as an aside, that was not a good accent point to the excellent points made by the gentleman from illinois. the way that we resolve this is

through the discussions and careful deliberations about the issues not by disrupting efforts to educate the members of this committee and the public and we will resume the hearing at the gentleman of california is recognized for that penalty for the five minutes for the disruption. >> could i get an extra minute for this month? [laughter] >> mabey. in several ways i want to associate myself with my good friend from illinois. i'm one of, 90 is older than you but that doesn't mean there is any difference in the baby boomers. we are going to enter the same. the immigration problems that predated my entrance and the gentleman's entrance into commerce. that group of disruptions really didn't understand my politics. we can get to a substantial if

not complete immigration reform bill cuyahoga for 12 years of the committee of trying to get their it is my fervent hope this is that window of opportunity. i do have some concerns from earlier today i want to associate myself. i heard you say basically we should grow different crops in california as a resolution to leading labor that we can't seem to find. is that pretty well correct? >> no, what i am saying is that farmers and employers and general make decisions incrementally over time based upon the availability of labor. >> absolutely. >> and so we have allowed, we have allowed the system to revolve that have made those decisions based on that assumption are dependent on that continuing flow of labor.

that is the nature of both temporary worker programs and the undocumented. >> i want to challenge that for a moment. i was there in '86 when the law changed. and i have seen my farmers that i represented in the past and some still represent flowers, tomatoes, strawberries, and then my wife in monterey county, literally the majority all of lettuce comes from that one county, the majority of the lettuce comes from that one county. if we simply say that we cannot have the labor to take that and we need to make other decisions, you are absolutely right we will grow something else and we want to import our lead is from another country. if the question is to be have an effective program that gives

opportunity to people outside of the united states, work for a period of time and periodically return home in a non-immigrant and migrant way, if we have an effective program and we could have an effective program i think that is the question. in the 90's when you were studying this, you were studying it in a time of which the problem had been fixed and was getting every broken as we spoke we have migrant labor devotee, the '86 law permanent they were leaving agriculture. isn't it true in the 90's and true today that there are tens of millions of people outside of the u.s. to stand in line to get good paying by the standards migrant jobs here in america and

would do so under a set of rules that were fair to that and fair to us. >> to say that we are fair that is big of course because the temporary worker programs generally have not had that character and then i would suggest. >> let me challenge that because i want a successful resolution and i believe the successful resolution is one, deal with people already here in inappropriate and comprehensive way. member to come obviously empowered us to have had the people in the economy, and number three, deal with low-skilled jobs that in many cases when people come to this country they do them for a short period of time. is our standard today supposed to be an american wage for an american jobs, and i want to go to or should it be a wage that

is completely fair and greater than the wage that someone would find in their home country for coming here and sufficient for them to not only earn a living but also the home with more money. and if that is the standard is in that an achievable standard where it is a win-win they can be better off and we can have a flow of labor for that one portion that in fact would not be subject to chain migration. >> the commission recommendations said that the was an attractive goal but not possible to achieve. not possible to achieve? i will go back and i want to be quick. my promise was that we pay more than they would find in their home country, but not necessarily what we are paying today with all of the rules under the program of h2a.

semidey might not look to the backlogs that have been generated that have lots of people that are not particularly skilled and waiting. they are entitled in some sense that they are in the backlog. >> i hear you say that it couldn't be done and that it wasn't going to work but i worked on this committee be leaving that they could. does anybody have a different opinion there would like to comment on the ability to take care of that one portion in a way that we could see crops that people want to grow? >> the guest worker program works in very well. for the skilled labor that is a good solution. for the high skilled labor you can't do that because -- >> you want it permanently. >> thank you. anyone else? >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate your indulgence. >> the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair. i come from a district that has lots of technology in the

southern part of the district. some from microsoft and many other technology companies. by a medical device companies and also a very rich agricultural industry of dairy and berries and specialty crops the immigration is very important for many different aspects. i wanted to start with you. we talked about h-1b but you also talk good a start of the visa program and i wondered if you could elaborate what you think needs to be in such a program and how that would work in conjunction with the program. >> it would do wonders for seattle and new york and even more for silicon valley. there are literally tens of thousands of companies the would be started almost overnight if we gave these entrepreneurs or would-be entrepreneurs the ability to do that. they can start companies you could start a company that you cannot work for it. so we would suddenly have a boom in the entrepreneurship like before.

it can be done independently with everything else we are doing. let's get that done. the big companies are lobbying very hard for it. they need it. there are debates about whether they take jobs away. some places you don't need the h-1b. we need those also. but the more i think there is to give green cards to the millions already here on the h-1b visa that are stuck in limbo. let them start their companies. let them buy houses and enjoy the rights that americans enjoy. estimate we talk a lot about the start up companies and also a lot of research comes from great basic research that's happening at the universities. and so how do you think that the relationship over the immigration program has an impact on the education that we are able to deliver in the medical area as well as in the technology area.

>> we need the visa coming in that is one thing we need is to commercialize more research because there would lead to the big boom. right now the researchers can't get to really slowed down american innovation for no reason whatsoever. >> we were talking about health care and obviously we talk a lot about the kind of technology and we believe that there are many needs not to stem research across the healthcare system i wondered if he wanted to elaborate on that a little bit. >> it is clear from the number of the reports that with the baby boom generation and the new health care environment there is a shortage of health care

workers of the various levels of physicians and certainly everything else the number of areas that are medically served appropriately. there are issues of getting in the hospitals comes a there are a number of issues and is also hard when you come in on a place like mine on the exchange of the visa to go into the research field and took me several years to make my way out to that because of the kind fiction that is placed. as we have always advocated that when you go through the immigration part of a specially the skilled immigration part, there should be a great deal of affordability and market based capitalistic system and gravitate with the schools and where the demands are and where they can contribute best and health care is no exception to that. the privilege of working in the

office on the program of which i am a graduate i would say and to provide service in the backlog at the end of the overall great ideas and it should be a lot of. >> thank you. when you talk about agriculture we have been talking a lot about the seasonal workers, but i know in the example that my colleague from idaho brought up earlier in the very world and we have many dairy farmers in my district. these are not seasonal workers they are year-round workers that the folks are struggling to make sure they have a strong work force so do you feel differently about the ability to address those is

and cilluffo folks back home about the issue in this seems like the stumbling block for almost everybody the pathway to citizenship you've been talking about for such a long time. you look at the promises of the 1986 immigration reform and granted citizenship to so many people that we were going to seal the border and make sure

this was a one time deal and we see that that has failed. my question to you is how do we not end up in the same situation ten, 20 years down the road if we do this again. my fear is what we were saying by the pathway to citizenship is all right let's say we seal the border 100% and nobody can cross the border illegally. you are still going to have people overstaying their visas. and the natural believe is they can't have a real job selling is in the flea markets or how do we craft this so we don't fall into the same track.

>> good to see you here from south texas i believe as a nation we are stronger because we asked folks to take an oath and to get allegiance to the united states. the citizenship i cannot imagine an america where we can find these folks to remember class status you will never, ever become a citizen if for. we cannot invite people to the same thing again. that is my concern. >> first of all the only way that you are going to accomplish that is with a comprehensive approach. the one thing is if you try to piece meal lit you'll find yourself here ten, 15, 20 years from now, but more specifically, i believe that this legislation should include enhanced border

security, enhanced interior security, the ability -- >> would you support the proposal for the biometric i.t.? >> i would support using some technology to help ensure that people are here who say that they are going to -- who are here legally >> i'm not sure if i'm there on that but go ahead. >> whether it is that or something like. there are people more qualified to speak than me on that. but i would say that including and the ability for employers to verify the legal status that is better -- >> again, we tried to do that and failed and you are still going to have the underground employers if you have got people who are overstaying their student visa. my concern, and you answered various time and time again, how do by granting that have taken a very generous pathway to the

citizenship, and maybe we tighten it up and we find the compromise but how do we avoid creating an incentive for people who continue to come here? that's what my constituents and most people, that is the big stumbling point. >> i think what you do is use of the issue that you have in front of you that you improved the ability to keep folks out that shouldn't be here and to ensure that people do not overstay their visas. there is a way to work on that. >> i don't see how you do that. everybody comes over here to see the statue of liberty. i am really concerned about this. >> sterling our hands up is not an option. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman from florida mr. garcia for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. mayor castro, i wanted to ask you what type of computer did your grandparents?

>> my grandmother in debt up working as a maid, coke and babysitter. >> i wonder what this would be like if we were canadians desperately seeking people to come back to the country because we have no one. it's not like texas people just want to be in texas or miami. i worry about. i hope you were just talking about the immigration because what brings people to the country is precisely that opportunity. you would agree, correct? >> for the moment -- >> and you agree that suffering that you are talking about is also being visited on immigrants already in this country that do not have documentation. families being separated, people deported. you would agree that is a bad situation? why should we make the decision? why should we decide on the people that are bearing down the door to come to the country and

not designed for those that would invest and have been here for such a long time? >> we would decide both with the undocumented america is divided to this gimmick it's tough because we give up on a don't you think? if you have been given the choice to pick strawberries in the paradise of oregon would you have taken that twice? >> i might have depending on my circumstances. >> but under your circumstances would you have taken that trace? the answer is no, correct? >> the green card is a wonderful way of being here. the difference between the green card and the citizenship -- >> it's called taxation without representation. it is an essential element -- >> the republicans know they are going to lose that battle if we legalize another 11 billion people. >> the problem -- the choice of the green card or the citizenship the green card

immediately. >> absolutely people would choose that just like they do every day. the other question that i would have for you is there some kind of a paradise for the folks that have been here ten, 15 years picking strawberries or potatoes or corn or apricots, that paradise of being an illegal worker do you think that is a particularly good a circumstance for the last ten or 15 years people do this are the happiness and to they want to be in this permanent underclass? >> i do not think that. >> is there a history of any great country of the world that didn't have immigration headed to its borders? >> say that again, sir. estimate is their history ever in human history of a country that was successful and didn't have immigration? >> i believe that from the babylonian empire, through the british and through today every nation that is a winner nation has immigration, correct? >> the commission is a strong

supporter of a substantial legal immigration system. bdy believe what it would cover your report says? >> the statute doesn't say it. i know the poem. im is lazarus and my first daughter's name is elma. scaap if we engage in this the date and we think there is some -- >> you spent how many years trying to make your status permanent? and you would agree that is not a particularly favorable place to be. and you would agree that those even like yourself are highly technical making a good salary but finding all of these impediments isn't a good thing for america's productivity. >> no, it's not. >> i would assume that you would want this for all others who find themselves in similar such region? >> yes. >> the issue is that we have mistaken and the folks on the oversight might be missing is that this is no paradise.

people work awfully hard on the american dream and all they want is an american dream and i want to be cleared the pathway to citizenship still doesn't mean we are going to sign them up to be citizens. that is the choice that is made i am sure in your city you would like more people to be registered to vote but yet they are not and that is a choice people make just like citizenship, correct? >> that is correct. >> thank you. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> i need recognize your resistance to finding a middle ground short of full citizenship, but i ask you if you were an illegal immigrant and the united states was in the business of enforcing our immigration law and your choice was convicted criminal or almost

citizen, you would choose almost citizen, wouldn't you? >> as i said before, do i believe that something is better than the zero? sure. i don't believe it is sufficient, but i don't believe that that addresses the entirety of the problem here. redirecting your attention back to mr. forbes question, which you thought was hypothetical and that if you were given the opportunity to write the law and ensure that it passed and we found ourselves ten years later with a large population of illegal immigrants in the country, would you enforce law or come back and find another pathway to citizenship? i would suggest it is not a hypothetical question because it is precisely the question that we are dealing with right now. the 25 years ago we passed a comprehensive bill and here we

have a low estimate of 11 million in the country some estimates millions more. what is the mistake that we made in 1986 the we do not need to make this time around to ensure that we do not have to do this again? >> one of the things we can do the was mentioned earlier is to continue to enhance border security and to work on interior security. technology has benefited us during that time. so, we have an opportunity here, you have an opportunity, the congress has an opportunity to pass a comprehensive and very well thought out bill and of course no one can guarantee and you are right there probably will be some folks that fall into that category in the years to come. >> so the mistake that we made is that we didn't enforce the law treat >> i think somebody else will have to speak to that.

we can't throw our hands out because we think we are going to have challenges leader. that's not an option, doing nothing is not an option. >> i agree but i also think enforcing the law should have been done and has to be part of the future. my father-in-law is british and is an engineer in the in the course she's manage construction one base in the united kingdom and one based in switzerland, and through all the years i've known him he has complained the most about the immigration law in the united states and the difficulty that it's been not only for him at times to work in the united states but getting the team members from other countries to work on large construction projects, pharmaceutical manufacturing and research facilities here. you have experience gives us just a little snapshot if one was a u.s. citizen engineer and

wanted to go to australia and manage a billion dollar construction project how much of a hassle with a beat? >> fi immigrants come over there and it's harder to get green cards than any other country. >> i had to fight to get the australian presence because the policy. today they welcome anyone that graduates from the universities and they welcome those startup companies to the eddy will finalize like everyone else in silicon valley companies want to hire the best and brightest all over the world but we won't let them. it's like a country that my colleagues at stanford talks about in the country was a game. the only people that you can hire our people from within the company and they are knocking out the world's best talent

needlessly. >> my district borders on the research triangle park in north carolina. a number of very large software companies but when they have difficulty in the united states often what they are able to do is just have them located in canada and skype their input and they pay the taxes in canada, not in the united states. >> that is commonly happening setting of the offshore incentives and vancouver and everyone else in the world except as silicon valley. we want people here said they can pay taxes and contract and they can start more companies after they finish their project. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair. you have indicated in your testimony the need for the policy or for practical reasons

to emphasize as we tackle this immigration issue the highly skilled visa to read you distinguish yourself in the time in america and the company with a thousand plus employees and you've contributed to the academy and you've written a book on some of the most significant and distinguished universities contributing much to america. now as it relates to the immigration policy of course there is an appropriate place to deal with the highly skilled immigrant issue and we have a history of dealing with the refugees, compassion that makes sense for who we are and represent our space values we have a history making sure that we grant the visa in recognition of the fact that we need to draw from people from all across the world, that is the promise of the diversity in the visa program that makes us stronger, and of course inherently the need to emphasize and promote

family unification for the reasons of fairness, reasons of efficiency and that clearly makes sense for the integrity of our democracy as follows the wellbeing of our economy. the lady from california has already made the point that some of the most significant companies come silicon valley start by immigrants but there it is yahoo! or google or e day, intel, who didn't come into this country through the highly skilled immigrant program that other means of immigration into gave an interview november 20 at on the publication of the school of business very distinguished school in pennsylvania where you stated i was in new york in the 1960's as a child and being in america is quite an experience. i left in the late 60's but i always wanted to come back.

the first chance i got was 1980 mcfate when my father got transferred to the consulate in new york city. would you agree based on your own experiences here in america that the notion of family unification of the usenet has been and should continue to be an enjoyable part of what we do as it relates to comprehensive immigration to the estimate the only thing i've been arguing is 120 double or even triple because we want to bring in additional talent that can heal the economy and help us take advantage of this technology that i talked about >> you are right the children immigrants go further than their parents difficult.

>> there's been this economy that's been presented how we find common ground in terms of the immigration reform debate. you've got the deportation of was presented as an alternative. on the other you have a half lead to citizenship, but i believe, mayor castro, you've indicated you agree that seems to be a false dichotomy. that the most appropriate contract is on the one hand mass deportation and on the other hand open and unsecured borders. and i believe that on both extremes, the overwhelming majority of americans believe that neither is appropriate for humanity or practicality. yes, if that really is the appropriate contract of the mass deportation on the one hand, and on the other open on the secure borders, the question is how we find common ground, how to be compromise based on those white ranging extreme alternatives and what you agree that in that

scenario the pathway to citizenship is one alternative, compromise, tough but possible and obtainable, firm but humane, and the only other comparable compromise was raised by others on this panel is permanent second-class status notwithstanding the fact that those permanent second-class residents would have passed them background check, paid back the taxes, paid the fine, perhaps got an education and served in the military command got to the back of the very long line. could you comment on those possible compromise alternatives and what seems to be most consistent with who we are as americans? >> i believe that you have laid it out well on the extremes you have the mass deportation of

11 million people that isn't going to have been done on the other in the open up the borders that's not a national interest buy any means. the bipartisan proposal and the president's proposal represents an effective compromise remembering that its current citizenship. the alternative truly is a recipe for creating a class of non-citizens in the united states. >> last but not least we have the gentleman from georgia recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think one of the good things about being last is that you get to listen and hear a lot of questions and you get to hear in this case a lot of hyperbole on both ends and that is the question i am sitting here with right now i from a lot of discussion and if we don't do this, if we don't pass this and these kind of questions. but a brief moment to come from

northeastern georgia, very agricultural district but it's also on the border of allantois we get a lot of what i will call the next blessing of both of the need of immigration and the industries, dairy, poultry, other things. but we also deal with those of the hard-working taxpayers that have been there as a transitioning during a battle concerned about their way of life and also about being fair and honest and open with them. i believe contrary to some that it's the only way you can show your true faith by opening up your arms and for giving and not having any rules to me by believe you can hold both. we have to look at that. the question that comes to my mind in georgia who's dealt with this issue for some in this room it might not have been a very good way, but we have dealt with it and we dealt with in a way that is still in progress and i think that it took a step from a state perspective to say what can we do because the federal government has not.

what concerns me is i keep hearing it is definitional. and i am a little bit three tenet on some things and i'm the last one so i will make these points. comprehensive immigration reform i've become concerned about and i will start with you is when i hear comprehensive in the hearing today what i hear this is comprehensive if it has a specific outcome that i like. it's not comprehensive if it doesn't lead to the specific end and i've heard in recent testimony and questions here that compromise between the unattainable paths is that compromise. but in the two things that would never take place is not compromised. you are taking the two extremes and basically saying there is a compromise in the middle you are not compromising because those two would never exist. it is a fantasy. you also stated the method that the nation's best interest of

halfway to citizenship that is correct? >> true. >> do you become believe to believe they come legally or illegally for the same reason? yes or no? >> i believe the vast majority come for the same reason but i can't say every single one of them comes for the same reason. >> is there room for discussion. it's with all aspects of this. from the ones are here. we wouldn't demonize the process of the ways to have a citizenship ending. they come here for economic

reasons and to give them something that has been said they lived here for 30 years on a green card my concern is compromising your mind only or comprehensive is a definition that we are using as comprehension will only take place with a desired outcome at the end. >> i use the word sufficient or reject it i think the only effective way to address this is to make it create a pathway to citizenship triet you are talking eight to ten years before anyone -- >> that is not my question today i am dealing with the definition because this is what is going to get interesting even as we go forward. if we leave you the comprehensive immigration reform under the guide of an outstanding outcome or intended outcome, we are setting ourselves up for is once they may be coming to the table for honest, open ideas for reform but if in the and all that we are hit with is you didn't do comprehensive because -- to read

you believe in the patient's best interest there's only one path that should be and that should be citizenship when really there's other alternatives that are out there. it is in the best interest but i don't think from a comprehensive standpoint we can tag the to we've heard in this process look, i do not believe the circumstances are easy has testified earlier for any who is here in the status that is not legal in the high-tech industry or not the other thing i want to lose sight of is there's hard-working taxpayers who are having hard work as well they get to go to work every day we have to find a balance for the two never forgetting what we are looking at and that's my concern. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> we provide the workers immediately and if we give the

citizenship and would fix the problem to be the consensus nationwide. and we don't have to get into these battles about citizenship or not to read that can be decided a decade from now. when the economy has healed and things are different. it doesn't have to be all or not immediately to the can be done over time. let's get rid of them immediately without wasting time making the country suffered where it can be resolved right now. islamic we're looking at it from the perspective of rall and i think that i appreciate you coming here and testifying from a different point of view. let's not try ourselves into the definitional reasons of comprehensive or other things to exclude or include and in the end we would say we didn't get it because it didn't fit my definition. i thank the gentleman for his questions and all the members of the committee for the questions

to this first panel and the members of the panel you have endured more than three hours of questions and it's been very enlightening discussion so thank you for making the trip to washington. we will excuse you now and turn to the second panel.

>> the prime ministers of italy, ireland, denmark and the netherlands discussed the future and moved to solve the current financial crisis. voters also focused on that trade relations with the u.s. onur disn and for the future referendum on the european membership. [ina the world economic forum in switzerland, this is an hour. tl >> i am the editor of thei'm financial times and a pitcherave the discussion to date we haveta the fol ur distinguished politil leaders in europe talking about the results and dynamism ineuroy europe and in the year autozonet i'm going to start with the prime minister if you look at

the panel, we have a rich tapestry. we have big countries, we have . smaller countries and we have te credited countries. we of countries in the euro ands outside for their distinct so pme minisspective in the europeante dimension. so, prime minister, i think it is the financial times that a thar ago said to people needed to save your up. they bothc recalled maria. ft do tell us last year we felt as though europe was on the edge.cs this year some conferences come? sowill bthe big story is where is the growth going to comeive o from? it is interesting to hear yourap perspective on what you have pe accomplished over the last year

as prime minister and what you >> yin the year ahead including those elections. elections i understand in at least two large european countries this year. well, what are we doing to achieve growth? i think each of us has to do things domestically and concerning italy what we have been doing inspite or maybe helped by the pressure of financial emergency has been to begin injecting more competition and openness in the markets. this is something that is totally in line with the e.u. inspiration of social market economy, and we are lead by, first of all securing the sustainability of public finances in the long-term,

including a pension reform, and also looking at the de facto for growth. infrastructures, long delayed in italy, we have simplified the process of building infrastructures and injected in acceleration on those. then the functioning of the markets and that we have introduced more competition for example, in the leader of professions, like to call themselves -- but many pressures to become liberal. and in the separation between gas production and gas distribution, to give you another example. all in the shopping hours and the commerce sector. also a lot of significant

indication concerning -- of course this needs to be continued and one issue about the italian elections in which i will not go unless -- here today is which political configuration is more in line with the need to sustain these structures. but i believe that -- not even the largest countries can really keep a momento for growth or resume a momento for growth unless the e.u. policies are more oriented toward dwrowt. and much of the time and energy in this year of italian government has been devoted precisely to that. and we have been among the pushing facto at the table of the european counsel including

adoption for the fact for growth, and also with the daily insistence on the single market being taken more seriously. we all know that europe is based on the single market, but we also know, as prime minister cameron, i heard just say there isn't really single market for energy for many of the services for the digital services in europe. and finally, we insist with some success in the recent european counsel to have a more forward-looking understanding in europe of the role of the good public investment particular for the interconnections for the infrastructure, investment, and this is something that we should also take in to account in our view, when we move in a couple of weeks to, i hope, the

negotiations on the e.u. budget. .. it's a ganz commonsense economics and history not to see the potential for economies of scale of an e.u. project slightly less restrained than we are willing to restrain our national budgets. >> thank you prime minister. prime minister kenny ireland has been through the equivalent of a hurricane since the onset of the global financial crisis and yet in the last 12 months islanders have come back to the capital markets. in can you tell us a little bita li more about the structure of economic performance and

particularly perhaps to repair the banking system which after all is in a qua non-for assumption of growth. >> yes. two years ago when the administration was elected it actually lasted 250,000 jobs prior to that. our registrations are ends shreds around the world.yf there is a complete sense of hopelessness and despair and disillusionment. government was elected with a very clear mandate to sort this out. to deal with public financial problems and to make the changes in the structure and ireland that will lead us to being able. to prove that we need a strategy and a plan. that works.

the banks are being recapitalize and restructured and have been back in the market as this over one in 2013. there are double-digit figur d thousand our people have had to e really serious challenges. his government made really serious decisions or if it is an example of the government works and understands the patience of people, putting up with these changes in the greater picture of things. now, we expect to do better. but we cannot do without the collaboration of the committee of the colleagues in order to do

that in 2013, and example of the bigger, european union issue. i would like to say it is important in terms of different countries. there is an example of the analysis. the finishing part of that particular situation. moving on to the supervisors and banking unit. because the smallest countries,

as you say, we were required to 64 billion as 30% of our gdp to pay for banks. in a situation that has been crushing on the people. it has actually factored in with the situation in a lot of we have contact and that is why in feis presidency, we want to run we want to run this effectively in the interest of allll the

th countries and that is why i would like to see the issues of trade the digital free markets japan singapore and canada singapore, canada, all of those associations and i think those are real opportunities. part of this all is here that our leaders, 26 million people unemployed in the european union, millions of young people who do not see their careers as decisions made by politicians. that is the central issue. people have to see and follow through the decisions that are made. that is an issue that all of us need to consider in the interest of all of the citizens. if we can continue for the seven years and i hope that you will go to the parliament and discuss

that again. they are required to give their authorization and follow through the decisions and make them happen. that is what politics is about. [applause] >> thank you very much for that. you rightly said that it is an incredible result of 60-30 in favor of this, given what is going on. would you like to give mr. cameron some advice on our? >> we have had referendums over the last 30 years. lisbon and was then an amsterdam, people in our country understand the difference between the council of the commission and the parliament.

they understand all of these things. we have made our decision clearly in the the future of the eurozone and era. our biggest trading partner is european union. britain can remain part of that. but i would argue that many of the issues that arise by politicians, from a bureaucracy or administrative point of view, these are things you can change from the inside. that is why i would like to see the digital market become truly singlet. i don't speak for the british

government, but whatever happens, i would like to see you that this would remain central to the european union and its future. it's very important that we have a sense for most of the big opportunities arise. >> would be very interesting to talk more about this. i'm interested in the degree to which you have a margin of maneuver as a smaller country within this big block. >> thank you. well, first of all, i think this whole christ is the we have been through, and we are not through

yet. those who are unemployed, we are not through the crisis yet. this wake-up call should be used in a good way so that it will be a way of taking us through to the other side. this is what we would be learning at the european level, in order to maintain the europe that we want. we woke up one we had the crisis. we realize that we lost what we thought was so good about europe. what we need to do in the coming days is to restore all of that. we need to change in a

structural way to maintain what we like so much about europe. at the same time, keeping very clear in our heads what makes europe special. what makes it special is that we have a social market economy and we have focused on environment and climate issues. we will also try to make a good basis of that. and all of the other things that make europe special. what we need to do is to change what we feel is our core values. we need to do this come as, as i have tried to do back home in denmark. we have done three things. first of all, we have kept an extremely tight budget. we have adopted a budget legislation and we can no longer exceed our budget from here on turn year-to-year.

all of this means that we have a very low interest rate in denmark, we have become a safe haven. a tight budget is important. the second thing is to be on a reform friendly. we have performed so much the last year that i don't think it has any comparison in our history. we have performed early retirement, and we have now reformed the benefit system. we are trying to reform the education system. we have been on a big frenzy. there then come i feel that this is important.

we have tried to bring balance into our budget. at the same time, having a focus on the groups in our society who are most vulnerable. what does that mean? that means that every year we have made sure that the most horrible citizen and something got out of the budget. so we have tried to preserve the quality, which is always a part of the european values as such. the three things, tight budget control, and also being focused on preserving what we feel is so important for our equality. this is part of what we need to do at the european level.

we have so much to offer. we have so much. this is key for europe and the individual countries in europe that is a very powerful statement. just to clarify, do you think he would be better off being able to do even more than that eurozone club? or do you think you're better outside? >> i have always been in favor of denmark joining the euro, and i still am. the interesting thing about the development in europe over the last two years was that we have had different choices. we had a choice between

splitting up or separate each other. should the euro countries a stronger together, or should we try to meet the divide between non-euro and euro countries? >> again, we chose the bridge. one thing i am extremely happy about is that every time we are taking a decision about strengthening the euro, all of these things. they have chosen a policy that is always euro plus. it means that other countries, some of the baltic countries, we always know that even though we have two different paces, there is an open door for non-euro

countries to join in those decisions. an example would the [inaudible] was open to euro countries. that means that denmark might've been the first want one to join it. now, we are discussing a banking unit. the discussion is the starting point that is an initiative. it means that we will have a vivid debate in my country -- that has been some of the most important decision. there is always a euro plus, the soonest. it should be taken. >> you did better than you

expected, your party. you also represent a creditor country. tell us a little bit about the dutch reform program. what is seeking to accomplish. second, whether you agree that whereas in 2012, it was a question mark that existed about whether a club would lose members were a number. in fact, that is now a federal western and all countries have agreed, including a particularly large one. that the club will remain intact. let me start about your second question here. it has been very difficult to take the helm in the countries. in the most difficult is circumstances.

there's a lot of stuff to implement and to the fiscal discipline that is necessary. to answer your second question, i believe our aim should be to give all the countries as members of the eurozone -- to keep the eurozone intact. to move to the members, enda kenny mentioned it the terms of public finances. we are putting the necessary reforms in terms of social security pensions.

obviously, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations. we are working at every level to get the growth engine going again. this has led to focusing on the main sectors in our economy, which we believe will bring us exceptional growth in the future. like the agricultural sector. we have the second largest exporter of agricultural products in the world in our country. also, the financial sector, which is considerably comparable. we focus very much on innovation and the research money in our

education efforts on these main sectors of the economy. if we would implement everything we have previously agreed, we would have 4% extra of gdp over the next 10 years. he would finally be able to close an agreement of foreign trade with japan. these are enormous figures. somebody asked me how to explain the impact of being a member of the european union, in his first being a member of prosperity. sometimes i am extremely frustrated as i know that most of my colleagues. and the members of the european council and all the trouble that we have. we should spend more time on

these issues. countries like denmark and sweden, the united kingdom, david has announced his famous friend. we need these countries. the countries and the baltics, some of the other ones, they are focused on bolstering economic prosperity. that is different from what we are having within the eurozone at this moment. i am always trying to alleviate as much as possible. obviously, we would be great if europe would join. if not, at least we have a full part of what we are doing together. we need to get that inspiration. >> yes, just picking up on your point, what odds do you think there are, eight out of 10,

seven out of 10 -- of a transit -- transatlantic free trade area? >> i think it is possible. to the members of the u.s. administration and barack obama himself, they understand that they are focused in, to be effective in their relationships, they have to work well together. europe is a strong partnership.

>> [inaudible question] >> i think it will require important admentan require important adjustments and policies on both sides of the atlantic but i think it will eventually be done in the time span that you outlined. ou outli. >> that would be one of the adjustments needed. >> i feel that there is a new sense of realism about europe within europe. the breakup of the euro, exit from the eurozone, all of these difficulties. all of the cynics who knew all of the answers had you never had any permanent data mechanism, you will never get to a point where you make it is and it is

important. the european council is now moving on. when we didn't support the tax of [inaudible] , because their implications, yet the first meeting, it was the first item on the agenda. the countries that supported this could get out of. i think during this current time, we need to start the negotiations for free trade between the eu and the u.s. the greatest trading block on earth, which is the european union, and the united states will be able to understand how

this can happen. the u.s. will become an exporter of energy with the changes that have happened there. we need much more focus ourselves. at the end of the day, it is always about jobs and that means injecting growth into european economies as a result of jobs that are being created for millions of young people across tiernan and give them hope and inspiration and motivation that politics actually .. doing, is to pick the

low hanging fruits, and they are out there. we could finalize the trade agreements. we are hopeful that this is what we should be doing. we were so eager to finalize this. why is that important? it is important because energy efficiency is cutting edge in terms of using our energy much better and more efficient. we can also make a good business out of that. so i think that we need to focus on the low hanging fruit.

we need to do the opposite, which is to use it, and something that gives us a competitive advantage in the global competitiveness. this is what we should be focusing on. this is the very practical approach. we have states of government heads sitting here. this is what we want to achieve. the perspective is enormous. mark was quoting the speakers. jobs and growth in europe is enormous. that is why we need to talk about these practical issues right now. >> one more question for the prime minister. this will be an important issue of the campaign -- i was in

spain couple of weeks ago. what would you single out? to offer hope to young people who do not have jobs in. >> two things. one is a specific measure. this outgoing government will follow the financial contingency. it will provide relief for those hiring youth. a much more can be done in the perspective and we now have a solid public finance situation. secondly, the overall labor market.

there we did introduce a labor market reform to inject more flexibility in the labor market. that did not go far enough. why did it not go far enough? because one of them were considerably resisting change. by the way, although they were invited to join and like all the others, they resisted the recent agreement as well on productivity towards more decent terms of labor negotiations. so the idea, should i promote it if i should be in a position to do so, is to definitely unite

forces that have been dispersed across the political spectrum, so there is more energy behind reforms, including labor market. it has resisted deeper reforms in the area. we have these forces that can do more. >> i think we will take questions now from the floor. we will take your questions.

we will take this lady or gentleman over there. >> okay, uk prime minister talked about retractor eating powers back to the uk. are there any on the panel that would like to read -- speak up on? >> the governments of the last two years. >> if you don't mind, we have

the prime ministers who can take the repatriotion issue. >> i think there is a measure here. this is we talk about the

failing countries leaving the euro, that doesn't mean that there should be any complacency. when we go down the road with this and integration in terms of financial management and so on, and the consideration for future treaty change. that is probably after the next commission. europe's new priority of understanding what it is like, means that the collective energy can deal with many of the obstacles of job creation.

there are countries that can deal with this before they actually happen. i think europe's research and innovation and education facilities will allow us to do that. we are not concerned with repatriotion, but finding ourselves in a brighter and more happy future. we can talk about all of these issues in the context of future treaty change one that arises. >> you might say that i am quite all right. because last thing we want is to be rewriting treaties were changing the flexibility of your tax system. >> taxes are very clear here. our tax is 12 to 5% corporate

tax. it is across the entire spectrum. the tax regime in europe in general helps us to make decisions about tax rates per it is clear and transparent. it is generally used by country. our international competence is not changing. >> precisely -- precisely because the world is changing, we need to he does. which tasks should be dealt with. i think there should be a debate or example, i would like to talk

with my colleagues on the area of occupational health and safety. there is so much that has been dealt with. very much in terms of rules and legislations. it is like hotel california, you can check out, but you can never leave. it is very much at this level. i do not agree when someone asks for specific favors for one country. it should he level at the end of the day. both on the european level and the a national level. i agree with david's comments yesterday in terms of making the union more efficient. you should also look at competitiveness. getting the engine going.

between the united states and europe, i think it is vital for all of us. >> yes, if i may have a word, i think it is eerie important to have a pragmatic attitude here through the history of european integration. some subject matters are very important, like competition policy.

without much ideology possible. on future generations, we need to instill fiscal discipline. i also make the case that i tell young people need to be able to find a job now, due to less

constrained. in regards to the future of italians. from this point of view, i have only seen one improvement. consumption, investment, one thing is current expenditure by the day. >> taking away from the old in order to produce for the young. >> it is necessary for the young that we have sustainable economies. if we just keep going, we are stealing from future generations. it is very clear that we have to have sustainable welfare systems and all of our welfare systems.

i want to return to this there has been a lot of action to this there is a big discussion that is being raised. this is a discussion that has been going on for years in the uk. we need to keep asking those questions. part of the wake-up call that i was referring to before, we need to wake up and ask if we are spending public money? are we spending the euro in the right way? that goes for members where we are turning every corner to

spend the rightly. part of the discussion is that we have to show very clear ideas in terms of spending money and the best way possible. the other thing is that we should do it at the membership level and we should be doing it at the european level as well. >> thank you very much. you know that i do care about this decision. just ask each one of you, do you believe that the changes that are going to take place in which will be agreed to secure the eurozone, those changes will require a secondary change. >> no.

>> know, possibly to the children of the future. >> now. he can do so much without. >> we will need to do more in the long term to change the treaty changes on this type of membership of countries in the eurozone. i believe that in the immediate term, this changes unavoidable. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> this will trigger this. i do believe to deal with some of the fundamentals in the eurozone, in the present term, we need to address this. >> ladies and gentlemen, that is to knows and one or two

possibles. >> okay, i just put this out there. this is in the eurozone. there are so many changes, the relationship between the out in the end. >> let me say one thing about david cameron's speech. do they wish to continue being

members, and each country can make a choice. without hijacking the others he i believe people will say yes. as it is, he will have to get out of the market, which i believe that they do not wish to do. rather than hanging on and paralyzing a day you the respect the eurozone.

[inaudible] clarity, decisiveness, and europe, given its kindness, has an opportunity to move on and make the decisions that we have spoken about with the changes of an impact and the economies of europe. the job prospects for millions of people, which is essentially what politics is about here. we need to have our own perspective inside the eu. and also in a global sense in the coming years. food security, changes, climate changes, water, etc. just to be clear, the referendum question has to be in or out. >> that is a question for the british government. >> i think it would be premature to have the discussion. we need to know what they

actually want in this discussion. we will choose to find out over the next few years. >> well, i think it is the british government who can decide what it should be. so we have to see what outcome we want. >> i think we have chase that rabbit. >> next question from the floor? >> gentlemen, a lady there? >> hello, i am amy kellogg from fox. this is a question for the prime minister. the u.s. needs to make some serious budget cuts in the coming months to avoid the fiscal cliff. both of you have gone through the process of making budget cuts in their own countries.

i'm wondering if you can share any lessons learned for the united states as it starts to make its own budget cuts. >> i am sure that they are waiting with baited breath. yes, i would venture to a that it was an effort. a special coalition was put forth of three parties making up 85% of parliament, which in the past, exchanged invectives. on a budget containment that we bring to zero.

the budget in structural terms. [inaudible] this, to me, simply means that in order to overcome difficult decisions, we do need broader than normal efforts. >> thank you. advice to the congress, republicans and democrats. maybe even something special for the white house. >> well, i saw the president in

march on st. patrick's day. i will say this, we have very painful decisions here. increasing pension age is changing the regulations governing mechanisms. the structures in the areas like health and government. the first thing you need is a plan and a cure. so the people can understand that you have an objective in mind you are objective is to get the deficit below 20% by 2015. we are on track for that. we need to pay overtime allowances for agency workers and so on on new year's.

the congress and the u.s. government operate differently than government here. the strategy with enough time to achieve that. there is a constant explanation to people as to how you intend to get the. we need european support. in that sense, the united states is such a huge country. with such potential. i believe that i think the united states also needs to look at the global positioning because of the impact on the

world economy. >> thank you very much. i'm sorry that we are going to have to draw this to a close. i was hoping that the irish prime minister with a a message saying that if you could only get your act together and cure these problems, it would be so much better for europe and the world. but you are way too much of a diplomat for that. [laughter] >> thank you very much. i'm sorry we cannot take more questions. it's been a fascinating session. please join me in thanking the a

>> there is no prescription or role model for cookbook for being first lady. and if you look back at the lives of martha washington or abigail adams or dolly madison and were edith wilson or eleanor roosevelt or s. truman or maybe eisenhower, you can see that

each woman has defined the roles in a way that is true to herself, how she can help her husband, take her family can i make her contribution to our nation. >> pakistan's ambassador to the u.s., sherry rehman, text about drug strikes and international law. she discussed u.s. pakistani relations during this event hosted by the christian science monitor. it's an hour.

patio mark >> our guest is sherry rehman, pakistan's ambassador to the united states. this is our first visit and were grateful she agreed to be here since the last ambassador who visit has lost his job the next day. [laughter] so you now, you're a woman at danger. i guess is the daughter of a prominent parents and the phi beta kappa to graduate where she said and history. she spent 20 years as a journalist in print and broadcasting of us to become editor of the herald news magazine. in the political world, she was first elected to parliament in 2002 to send her current in washington. she sat down as ranking member that national security committee

in pakistan's parliament and is chairperson of pakistan's red crescent society. so much for biography, not too exciting matters of process. as always, we are on the record. no live blogging or tweaking in short but the practice is underway. there's no embargo in the breakfast is over except c-span has agreed not to use video discussion for these two hours after the practice sense to give everyone here time to file if they wish. if you'd like to risk a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal i will call on one and i'll happily. we'll begin by offering ambassador an opportunity to make comments in the two questions on the table. with that, madam ambassador, thanks for coming. >> thank you to the monitor for hosting this. it's a lot overdue exercise and i'm very happy to be here this morning and should be given what i call unique opportunity to

address issues that we have been lucky not and i know some of you in the media have been following over the last many years. so yes i think i have very good reason to be endangered, but i hope we cannot at this knot in flames shall we say. my bio is interesting, but i have spent over a year and being a spokesperson for the pakistan people's party as well as the government and a resigned data well ago. so it's not difficult for me to be boring for an hour and not give you something that's an excellent soundbite. my first attempt is to just give you a very quick, i'm told three-minute rundown of where we are in the pakistan u.s.

relationship. a semester primary interest tavern here, but i'm happy to take questions and other issues and speak to as many concerns you might race. it is good to be a lot to say that after a year, over a year of my being here in washington, since november 2012, this relationship has come a long way from the days or 2011 and early 2012 when i was marked by chronic distress of crisis management and episodes that left many of us awake at night. i'm happy to report that the relationship is now on a stable and uphill tricia. our expectations are related to each other and certainly the posts we have mutually of

stabilizing the reason i'm chairing region and stability in south and central asia as well as pakistan are a task that is daunting my cut out for us. we also of course want to report that apart from the u.s. relationship, pakistan is undergoing historic transformation in translation in the sense rerun a few about to go to our first peaceful constitutional transfer of power, which is to the combat of a general election. this is the first government to have finished his five years and we look forward to engaging with the united states is a new democracy, which we have been for the last many years. but as i round us up, i am also

looking forward to discussing many, many issues, but also to tell you that we are now in the middle of a sustained chronology of institutional working groups that are just different issues of interest to both countries, namely on all strategic issues from economy to finance, energy defense, law enforcement, counterterrorism and the core strategic stability. our principals have been meeting. we had a meeting in brussels as you may have heard. we've also been meeting off the non-facilitating working groups as well as high-level bilateral engagements. congress has been going away by several visitors from pakistan. so we are looking forward to the relationship that is defined by

confidence, trust, mutual respect and investment and each other societies and nations, not just a true critic out there in the 21st century as long-standing friends and allies. i look forward to working with all of u.s. friends. i've been a journalist for too many years to miss you can't take that out of the girl. you can take bad journalism, but it's difficult to do that. i want to also read very quickly that while we make in this historic transition, pakistan is looking toward its highest profile in itself invisibly nonregional transformations in the region, we have made an important foreign policy shift,

both in terms of process and engagement and i say that it is grounded for the first time in our history and the bedrock of parliamentary consent, public legitimacy and many stakeholders that matter the mount board. this is a first for pakistan, including our relationship with the united states, which is pretty much run by parliamentary guidelines and remove according to those now, which doesn't power us to take decisions that are sustainable and we let our relationship that is long-lasting and not just a function of our relationship in the united states and afghanistan as it transitions out of the region. >> today offer you breakfast quite >> yesterday. >> are so busy taking notes.

let me ask you a noble move to our colleagues. graduations to john kerry, i wanted to ask you at the impact of moving the secretary of state is going to have. as you know "the wall street journal" ran an op-ed piece last week talking about how at least the view in india is kerry told stories pakistan. what is your sense of the importance of any of kerry's importance? >> the pakistan u.s. relations are vital importance to those countries and we appreciate very much the fact that the state department has been one of our best interlocutors through difficult times and we hope as we look towards better spaces and times as we craft policy together. senator kerry is low respect it. he brings experience and knowledge of the region as well as policy. well i have to say i take this

opportunity to also appreciate and thank the outgoing secretary of state, the inimitable mrs. clinton who has been allied and a partner and certainly viewed very well in pakistan as the most important and powerful diplomat representing the united states fears abroad. we welcome john kerry because pakistan knows john kerry as the architect -- one of the architects of the kerry lugar berman legislation, which has been instrumental in broad-based in this relationship and anchoring it and we hope a longer and more sustainable multifaceted relationship. we also know that it's not a relations transcends

personalities as well as political parties. we work and we hope to work with every senior policymaker in the united states as well as congress and senator kerry has emerged from those ranks. we look forward to working with him and i don't think we need to speak to anyone. he has worked his policy agenda and i'm sure he has a great deal to address as he takes this important and challenging task. >> as you know, your foreign minister did a talk at the council on foreign relations moderated by david sanger of "the new york times" and while they are in terms of policy in afghanistan, the united states is living with a determined that you accomplish objectives and she said the border with pakistan has become less well

managed. he described a constructive happy relationship is our policy in terms of afghanistan one of the sore points? >> i think what we are looking at now is clearly what the foreign minister was addressing as a sense in pakistan as the drawdown approach is. there are clear worries about how responsible this exit will be that we are of course invested in making and ensuring that the region remains as stable and peaceful as possible. but i think it is perfectly easy to understand why there is a calendar attached to the straw down and these eminent anxieties are informed by our encounter with the united states in relation to afghanistan 30 years

ago and we still are living to tell the tale of the kind we would have to deal with. it has reshaped pakistani society. it has brought in another culture of violence, volatility, guns, narcotics and lay still post the largest refugees which is a forgotten story. they are not integrated in pakistan. we have welcomed with open arms, but i think pakistan is well-placed and certainly articulating these anxieties about many goalposts that we should seek in terms of stabilizing that border.

it is an important, law, volatile, open, very porous border between the two countries and we recognized that there are capacity constraints on all sides, but we appreciate very much at the capacity constraints on our side also be understood in a strategic sympathy be spread around about the role and heavy that the pakistan has done and executed in terms of joint policy goals over the last 10 to 11 years. and i say this because there's a great deal of that lease before now, there has been many years and narrative here of pakistan not having done enough into combat joint goals, which really relate to terrorism. we feel after having over 46,000

civilian and soldier's after having lost $78 in both economic opportunity investment and infrastructure and counting and having many of our terroristic sanctuary we can do extensive and human cost as well operations on our side of the border. one case in point the s.w.a.t operations, the terrorists that are able to move across the border with very little interdiction on the other side. we do not perceive it to be actual sanctuary. we understand is the repeated candidacy capacity problem, but you do know there is all 40 nations in afghanistan during the same job for the years were being asked to do very quickly

on that border. so there needs to be a recognition of capacity constraints, which we've done all along and we appreciate the same time for us. it's not at all an absence of commitment to join goals because pakistan remains firmly and unequivocally committed to finding, combating terrorism and extremism in all forms and manifestations because to us it's not something we can walk away from. it's a clear and present danger to our society and our way of life. and when you say what are the worries? obviously one of the worries is that they may be security vacuums after the straw down because many of the timelines spoken out in terms of transitions and the securing of a possible negotiated peace are

all right now timelines and we look at them with hope and we have been strenuous and moving all her resources, political, diplomatic and otherwise to the task of whatever negotiated settlement the united states and afghanistan are seeking in this moment of challenging transition. >> that may tell you were going next. david wood, john mande and family jake. >> thank you for being here. two questions. one, your president and hamid karzai have been meeting among them with their six-month deadline on top of the taliban. you ever envision where the taliban as a political party functioning the society.

and do you think that the likelihood of the strategy is the best on long-term? >> she's has to live the questions. the first is to speak in terms of where they see the taliban output level and where they see the taliban integrated the mainstream in their society. they do have constitutional obligations to uphold and we are also looking not the united states in afghanistan as well. there is a timeline right now of an election to be held in afghanistan i see now. the desire processes and political decisions to make themselves. and when i say this, i do want to point that historic shift of pakistan is consciously and proactively making.

our government has been very clear, including all are stakeholders that pakistan is going to strenuously support all efforts at stabilizing afghanistan and bringing peace to the region because that is banal our vital interests. as i said to me cannot walk away from the region. is faithful and peaceful afghanistan is in the first interest of pakistan. having said that, when you say where that is the taliban and what they do, when recess at the reconciliation process as we than proactively doing through court groups are tired after a process that the working model and operational levels, the highest levels of government, and what we are seeing is putting a shoulder to this real.

but they have to be the process. we have no rules except any basic of us. we will not be interfering in afghanistan. we will not be leading any price i stare. this is a sovereign but process. msb defined icon. msb led by them and msb timeline by them. including indicating the race forward our roadmaps by stakeholders such as the united states and pakistan have been following. at least pakistan has been defined in public interactions at the high peace council of afghanistan has had recently pakistan. so we are certainly hoping to keep the momentum on these talks going because stabilization method can of vital importance

that we have high-stakes because of obvious spillovers of volatility and violent and pakistan. so we will be keeping as much momentum and applying as much political and diplomatic resources we can to the task. but it has to be asking why. when they ask us to know, that is the process they been following. there can be no repeat of the 90s. there is a point to history one learns from from, so we moved in that direction and we are hoping to build equities at peace and responsible transfers of government and i hope that we can secure the peace they are seeking to build right on their society. it's a tough process. it's maybe slow, maybe arduous,

but we hope -- it's a knockout task, so we hope to the data snatches we can with an, but it can't, it is their call, barely we can't be guarantors of anything in this whole equation. we are behind both players right now with our entire diplomatic and political research to tivo. [inaudible] -- like the prince? >> these are decisions that the reigning u.s. united states are making together. i can only speak to a question about a footprint in pakistan and certainly i think a lighter footprint there in terms of drum strikes -- drum strikes would be better.

drum strikes are not seen as operationally project david pakistan. we see them as a direct violation of our sovereignty and we also see them as a violation of international law. so yes, it may be a precision tool that may have these days, but believe me, we have been working together in the past as well to degrade and destroy and diminish al qaeda ranks and i am appreciative of those senator kerry and ambassador olson's remarks that pakistan's cooperation has been vital in doing so and i think while we move towards diminishing al qaeda ranks and certainly i region, the time for drone strikes is so very.

oneok >> i have a question of hillary clinton. [inaudible] >> as i think a question very close to my heart and obviously secretary clinton, we do appreciate her for the work she's done. it's invaluable and i think she's traveled many miles to reach out to women without the same opportunity as we would like women are gross everywhere to have. so i think that is the legacy that will endure for mrs. clinton and breanne pakistan are committed to building, as i said, a durable partnership with the united states on issues exactly such as these. you know, we had a young girl who was epitomized in the

struggle of the children in pakistan to retain initiates the opportunities as children everywhere in the world and we hope to be able to bring women. we are disseminating female poverty and it's not going to happen overnight, but not just feminist and leadership in pakistan, you know that women are in positions of power and responsibility in many places in pakistan from the speaker of the foreign minister to many ambassadors and nothing on the line and there's a critical mass in parliament that has brought a very landmark legislation for enhancing women's race and protect dean society, so while that is something we tend to gather, there's a u.s. business council we are working on that

mrs. clinton put together, which we kind of signed up with the general assembly session late last year. and i like to take the opportunity to tell you when we say we are looking at the bottom of the pier and then, pakistan has for the first time put a safety net for the many people who have been driven under the line of poverty. but that safety net is accessible to women, which gives them a direct access and this is a 10% of the population already. this income support program is actually now being seen as a gold standard and many developing countries, the world bank is assisting with this transparency and poverty

surveys. it is the way managers and program it occurs only to women. but it does disempower a woman and that she is income. she does the decision-maker in the first unit of exercising power and i think all powers political and that's the household. we are providing us the document to women and the economy as well as all pakistani citizens in what is now as the first nic computer ace card, to use this card may don't have to be married to use this card to access such as the first tranche of health care based on these cards. the income they can see cash transfers, but they have

assisted people and the natural disasters that place in seeking flood relief and now they will be moving to health care benefit. this is really a way forward. at the heart of our core strategies. >> what about the challenges? >> the challenges are many. across the board, but i'm happy to say that higher number of decision-makers and many western economies. that makes a huge difference to both mainstreaming women's

challenges and issues in the public domain and also why we were able to have what i call flagship legislation called the harassment though, which i started and now there are public-sector operations and private companies that are actually actively signing up to follow the code of conduct. government entities are now being actually mandatory and these are the stories that don't reach you. they are dismissed in public and private sector corporations based on these laws do we have media partnerships. people are putting advertisements, telling people how they are made to voices heard and not suffer silently.

these are challenges that we need to offer them better. the most important thing is mainstreaming them economically and politically. these i would call front lines. you will continue to have agreed just pockets and abuse and differences in the face all over the world and i don't want to bring up the sisterhood of suffering and as. but it's certainly stands united in making salvation women phase a dual burden in the sense that they also work outside the home, but their work is not considered a contribution to the mainstream

economy. certainly women were called a lot. they also work inside the home. and that is why we're putting especially rural and urban women were disembodied at the bottom of the pair met at the heart of our development strategy. [inaudible] >> i want to ask you about the drones. pakistan's ambition and i think under both of those guidelines, you have a right for that. my notes you choose that? has pakistan threatened to shoot down drowns? there's a reason well understand , it's sort of weeks. that may address this is more

sportsperson do. this is what we can -- we do ask the question, which many ask, is there quiet complicity in this? let me assure you there's no question of any complicity, no question of wink and nod. this is a parliamentary breadline that all government institutions have internalized this policy. and you know, i also see this as not jazz a policy that i -- that we say. it is important to us to recognize this because drowns are actually seen as an eerie negative and unfortunate few of

the u.s. power to project its power abroad. every time there's a drone strike, you see it on 40 channels at least in pakistan. we have a very robust free media and you see them on all these channels with the u.s. flag and so, that in and of itself makes life very difficult for us as we build consensus, public consensus. this is the united states and not ours. it is also operationally now they've because it creates more potential terrorists on the ground and militants on the ground instead of taking them out. it's taken a high-value target,

then it's also creating probably an entire community of future recruits to the cause we are seeking to bring sympathy forward in all these areas. instead what it does is radicalize people that were standing up against militants and terrorists using a religion, for instance, as a mobilizing force. so i think drones as an instrument they have had some advocacy in terms of precision, but it's like saying we can't allow u.s. f-16s to come and for instance. to run anti-terror operations when we can come the women were able to move the protect them. so drones are now, we do see

them as productive at all. >> what general staff comes to you and said we need -- [inaudible] >> excuse me? you need to be a very big fire that committee wall, wouldn't you? >> john mccain. >> career on the same page now come the members of general staff on where the future of this lies. pakistan has to take ownership of all anti-terror operations, absolutely all of them to be sustainable and to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of our people. you know, there's been a lot of drones strikes next door, so in any case, you know al qaeda -- the whole al qaeda list is

pretty much through our cooperation, a joint after a night spent in this administration will agree to also. >> you talk about the process in afghanistan being afghan led. president karzai had this fact developed in both pakistan and roadmaps of 2015. that roadmap subsidies pakistan for the united states in terms of brokering face-to-face talks between the afghan taliban and mr. karzai's government. it's been accepted by your government, so i'd like to know how much progress your government has made in terms of the reaching peace talks. mr. karzai's government as part of that effort would like your government to release the man who is the number two had on the

shore boulevard auto. your government has refused to do so. talk about that with your assertion -- >> when is the last time you heard about that release? i would check with your administration. >> i believe the afghan defense minister presented that last week. >> the defense minister has left a happy man as i'm told. [inaudible] >> we don't discuss list in public forums, but it is not -- we have been number one. bsa said have come to this whole process. they been asked to come to the whole process as you drive down with an announced timetable that we financed to come. we can do what we can to assist

as they ask for whichever prisoner releases. we've been doing that. we have been doing that and complete ordination to the corporate process we run. instantly that kept running even when high-level talks are suspended between pakistan and the united states. so we did keep that process going. i think there is no substitution at all. [inaudible] >> you can certainly be that plan. we will do everything we can and there's no equivocation here. we'll do everything we can in the timeline they are looking for. >> attacked by the end of this year. >> they are very clear. we want to wear happy to to arrange whatever we can. i think united seen at is the engagement that all had with the

u.k. just recently, there's been -- we are even supporting the qatar process and the bosses record that we support all process is that my brain any chance says a sustained, negotiated settlement for afghanistan and we will support that. ibm mac his blueprint, which are government has been working with the government and putting into action, talks that actually move that process to saudi arabia. pakistan would take the lead and arranging face-to-face peace talks. >> we will take the lead. we can run as much as they're asking for a timeline, which we are cooperating with, quite

diligently and the united states still is engaged in this process. as i said, we cannot sit there and pose as guarantors for outcomes. we can certainly assist the united states in afghanistan, particularly in seeking whenever -- if they are releases to be made or not we're are making them according to their timeline. the iran council is the mandated body to do that. i have met in islamabad and i believe they just might in london as well. we are moving towards the task absolutely. as far as i can say i'm happy to speak to the sock for the

record. >> would cut about 20 minutes left. amalie, jamie, hashish. mla. >> ought to ask a follow-up on the question you alluded to clarification. the prisoners that have been released in recent months have all been bad after he questions asked. talk about what the process is for making those decisions. >> that suppresses the united states and afghanistan have been engaged in together and we are absolutely following their lead. they are going to be bringing nice and i keep saying this is a reason why it has to be afghan led. they have to be engaged in how they take this forward. it has to be wrote and that we will be according to their chronology in their comfort on

this. >> separate question is on the coalition and. i know there was a period of time in pakistan for those. [inaudible] >> i think the status of that is we have accounting. simply talk about. they were suspended over the six to seven times that we saw that whole hiatus, as you know, those have been cleared away to always always have a difference between what we say is our css do because these are not coalition in aid to pakistan at all. certainly that's not the formula of the view. i believe there's a discussion discussion for forward movement.

>> jamie. >> thank you, madam ambassador for doing this. in a speech that summer, your predecessor, mr. haqqani said that there is not a convergence of interest that exists between pakistan and the united states that pakistan behaves like syria and basically implied that the u.s. should cut off aid and that's the way the relationship can exist in the long run. what's your comments and also, have you seen the movie "zero dark 30"? >> berry zero and very dark. [laughter] what can i say it? as far as ambassador haqqani is concerned, we are a democratic country. everybody speaks out and he's entitled to his views and i

believe he said that not enough space. so those are the views and desire a civil society viewpoint. we think that pakistan -- that made them a while ago to be fair. pakistan has demonstrated a clear shift and i keep saying that we made it very clear shift in the call this a regional pivot. in a speech at the united nations, rss the most important right now, so we take a lead. we do not want a repeat of what we thought 30 years ago and we don't want a surge of violence into our own country. we have enough to deal with there. we have 150,000 soldiers on that western border with afghanistan. we have committed our entire country and its resource to this battle ahead. it's now pretty much around and

gather to extremism and terrorism and as you know, we have also made an investment in reaching out to those sites, not just one. it is indeed other countries as well as of course india and this is an historic change that we have opened up for trade lines with afghanistan and of course in terms of security we have clearly said there's going to be no interference in the hall politics of reconciliation are government making as they go into their own election and u.s. transition, pretty much a process where we stand. there would be no favorites we play at all, which is why we are very careful to say we are going to back their lead.

i'm sure you have noticed that this is the most underreported story in all of history. we are dismantling the entire 50 years of tariffs and trade tears that stood between the two countries and i think we're looking forward to a future where we can record the entire region of enhanced trade, peace and other opportunities. our banks of opening up branches in each other's countries. while we remain engaged in dialogue on other issues, we are able to de-escalate when it arises. you know, so we're moving beyond all templates of strategic policy in the region. >> you're going to have

elections in pakistan this year. but challenges to these political transitions posted the peace process moving forward? >> well, pakistan election and we are very different in terms of how we ever structurally and constitutionally run the selection. as i said, spent the first constitutional transfer of power, that could in elections this e-mail, we say this time have built institutions to safeguard democracy. we don't see it just as an election. as we have the province is, through historic shifts of constitutional and resource transfers in pakistan, one of the institution building process

is best kept us busy there is the appointments and building up an election commission that is cleared and appointed a bipartisan committee of parliament, meaning the opposition has not stayed in the election commission or point it and the rules of the game on how that election is ruled. so the level playing field that my mentor stop for many years as a level playing field that we are providing in this first historic collection because all parties have agreed on this. the election commissioner himself is a respected, it retired jurist who is acceptable to everybody and when the first accept acts of the election commission was to anything thrown at one the parties and

candidates that we have to accept that. of course as you know, fairly good. we had been bearing down to all of the judgment because we have message right now. the media, as you know, are extremely independent and holds the power to transmit opinion everywhere an across-the-board. so the elections are going to be held on time. they will be held with a caretaker government in place, which is best for constitution, the government has 60 to 90 days to run that election so that the incumbents are not able to influence the outcome. and we're pretty much on time and on course for that.

[inaudible] >> as i said, afghanistan is running the peace process. pakistan is turning pakistan right now, but we will certainly assist in the peace process as required. the foreign office will remain engaged through the election. i think everyone will remain caged. we are not two months into the run-up, but we're constantly engaged in this process. so i don't see it becoming a sum of our elections. at the end of the day, afghanistan is in the peace process. >> karen. >> thank you. the diverse follow-up on follow up on jonathan's question if i could get you just clarify a little bit. the afghans and the americans have complained that they are those who have been released have been very low down on the

list of what they've been asking for and they haven't been released as requested directly to the acc, but in fact have just been released. you said that when asked about broader, when was the last time you heard this particular release in the afghan defense minister left the meeting a happy man? [inaudible] >> -- that are made as their request? >> censors at the top of the other scum which you expect this release to come sometime soon? stack this is a decision they'll make together. >> following on the question of being discarded more or less as they did a number of years ago, what would be pakistan's thought about the size and ashamed of the united states after 2014 cents as it's been described by

u.s. officials, the main reason for this force would be to continue counterterrorism operations to some extent. >> of the fittest to be directed towards pakistan? [inaudible] [laughter] >> when we are able to extrapolate that, that will be response. we have made counterterrorism operation very clear also at all levels that they will be of course, reading, but it has to be according to our own constitution and acceptable limits, which is the drones are the red line here. >> do you have a sense of what person should the best accomplish pakistan at preserving stability? >> pakistan has no games. i mean, this is the new pakistan. we're looking to secure pakistan

right now and we have no games other than to assist our afghan sisters and brothers in what they seek going forward. the united states or nato isaf has left no serious -- one of the things that worry us, for instance, is that the border is becoming increasingly volatile and where we see we have been caused by asking for narcotics interdiction on that border and the charter, so we do see these are not glamorous issues, but this is a here and now for ice. we have a think of the 800 for smuggling and for instance, the ammonium nitrate issues brought up and we are interdicting with in anybody else that border.

there is nothing close to matching interdiction capability on the other side of the border, which used to be command beast if i may say so and isaf areas. and now of course the ratio is sent to enclose 2821. so, this needs to be looked at more seriously. these issues need to be looked at far more seriously. >> was that howard look frankie and if we have time, definitely howard. >> s., ambassador, first about this question that the u.s. will after the drawdown, are you saying since you bring up the question of the border in terms of answering the previous

question, you say you feel that the united states should have more -- a role, for example, in safeguarding the border as a training role of our counterterrorism role. are you saying that she received a greater role for the u.s. after the drawdown? secondly, i am just curious, "zero dark 30" ucsb receiver, very dark, but my understanding is it's very popular. >> i can't really address hollywood, can i? >> i'm wondering how you would explain the movie's popularity. >> i'm not aware is popular. i don't know which poll has told me that. [inaudible] if you are, please disabuse me. i think there is much more bali would going on right now.

that's was pulling people in theaters, despite we've got music fans in india. that's a story very. they may not make a great copy, but that's what's happening at "zero dark 30". >> i can't really speak to the u.s. role in afghanistan. i can constantly speak to you about what we have thought to accomplish together and where we need to go. for instance, if you just talk about cooperation with the united states and where we have common friends say 2009 to 2012 in terms of restrictions. this is that pakistan has done alone. 37% say the tribal areas where government control in 2009 and now we have about 86% in 2012. so we are doing what we can to

restrict the operational space in our tribal areas. it's hard to interdict, as i said i'm not border, if the other side remains on hand. we have not seen any serious operation on the other side. we are not ever able to allow operations inside pakistan. so really, we are doing that began with very strict resource and i just want to point to you that what we can do is work closely, share information, do the blame game and that's one of the worries that is the drawdown, we've seen in the past that there's a failure in a sort theater, it then has to be put to someone's docket. so i think that's what we want to avoid we've been recently of waiting. the u.s. can assist in enhancing pakistan's counterterrorism

capabilities and surveillance detection, mobility, accuracy, all of those. for us, we are looking at it longer haul and we have x amount of capacity. compare that to the united states. for 10 years he has our defense budget is $5 million for the whole year's figures spending 2 billion a week. so you know, it's not even apples and oranges, so don't always lead our door but this big global force could do in afghanistan. we are doing what we can and will continue to do that responsibly. >> i want to follow-up on the whole question you mentioned several times. by the way, thank you for doing this. the notion of the drugs being about nine for pakistan. normally when countries and

allies and partners in one crisis at a time, that is a breach if not striking down those drowned from a certainly a in relation to we haven't seen that in the way we did oversell allah or did she lachemann wondered why not it is such a red line. [inaudible] >> is, of course and i was the killing of our soldiers on the border by a partner. this is an anomaly that we are constantly addressing and all conversation that the united states and its certainly not part of our playbook to have drawn operations carried on in pakistan. it never was and they don't see it as the future and we don't want our engagement with the united states to be defined by that or our operations to

divulge to this kind of load. but i do have to say that there has to be a little more strategic sympathy for what pakistan has done and continues to do in terms of contributing to this effort. it has been a very long haul for us before 2001 we committed to this joint effort, there is no suicide bombing in pakistan. i mean, the numbers are out there before you. it is more than one a day -- excuse me? [inaudible] >> there was one. i can give you that. an absolute statistics -- i have other statistics in my head on my laptop, so there was one and now there are well over one-a-day if we take that number. [inaudible]

>> since 2001. >> since he's such a serious issue, why not take it to the next level if that's not shooting down american drones -- >> you need to make that headline, but i don't speak to that issue. we don't discuss these issues beyond a point. we don't discuss any from that podium. >> the second question was on 2014. again, you've made a lot of compelling points about how you're working with limited resources. you're not getting the other side of the border for the international forces in afghanistan, sued the u.s. and coalition forces say the very very light supper and after 14, is not going to make it harder to appeal to the u.s. counterparts to say hey, we need you to leave at least x number. >> that is why we are looking at

and supporting the negotiated peace process. i mean, clearly force has not been in an zero the years and it's always suggested that the talking started earlier stage. >> welcome you failed on your effort to be the roaring. be thank you for that. appreciate your comments. >> i really failed on my effort to be barring it i do appreciate no quotes out of context, having been added or for 20 years. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..